Oliver,
While I admit that my reply could have come across as "authoritarian" I can assure you, and Lee or anyone else reading it, that it certainly wasn't my intention and at no point do I, or have I, claimed any authority in any of these things. Perhaps if I explain the reasons as to why I responded in the way I did, which you've mistaken for being "harsh", "unwelcoming" and displaying "callousness", it will make more sense and clear things up somewhat.
Firstly, my apparent "validation" of Ian's reply was due to my having a great deal of respect for the guy and knowing that he understands the Buddhist model, including the terminology in it's original language, incredibly well; that he would categorically state, based on the descriptions given by the OP, this experience is not "samadhi" and the reason the guy didn't find any relevant information in the "Jhana&Samdhi Catalog®" (which isn't a something I'm familiar with) is because it was neither a jhanic nor samadhic experience, indicates to me that the guy isn't using the terminology in the same way it's used in the Buddhist model. It may also be partly down to me seeing Ian as an authority on such things, given that his advice, his writings and his work outwith the DhO all indicate a high level of knowledge and experience with jhana and samadhi, particularly in the context of Buddhism.
The comment about using terminology inaccurately is, as far as I can see, justified since the OP, based on their first post on the site, appeared to be coming from an entirely different, non-Buddhist based angle but gave very little information on their own practice prior to this point. For example, pranayama isn't a Buddhist technique and such forms of visualization are more common to Hindu-based models; having come from a background which includes yoga and extensive practice of pranayama, I know from experience that these practices don't lead to the permanent end of suffering in the way offered by the Buddhism model. If the OP uses terminology in an entirely different way to the way in which it's used within this community, it makes sense that they would be willing to discuss this and perhaps come to a point of mutual understanding; if we start talking about things while using terminology in ways which vary so wildly then it's not going to help anyone, least of all the OP who's asking the question.
My suggestion that Lee's experience was "a product of your imagination, brought about through unfocused concentration and poor technique" was based on my own experiences of such vivid mental imagery in the past, which came about through strong, but unfocussed concentration and insufficient technique to use that concentration effectively to penetrate the subject/object illusion. It was a suggestion by one person, no one would, or should, take my words as being any sort of authority, it's just an opinion from another person interested in these matters.
I also then said, quite clearly, that it would be more beneficial if Lee, as he has subsequently done, could provide more information on his practice, what he's done in the past and generally give a better idea of where he's coming from before trying to move forward with this. The initial description reads like a DMT report from Erowid, in my opinion, and several comments made by Lee indicate that this, contrary to being a positive experience overall, is something which he's continued to cling to, chase after, and has led to frustration. In short, dukkha. By continuing to try identifying this experience or figure out what it was, all that's happening is that more craving and aversion is being generated, and I have no interest in encouraging such fruitless behaviour. This is why I may come across as being quite curt in my reply, but I see no value in helping someone to continue causing themselves to suffer.
And personally, I didn't find the chakra gag very funny either...

I guess my point is, this bias towards discrediting strange experiences UNLESS they accord with Daniel Ingram/AF's perspective (fruition, stream-entry, AF, ect.) is completely biased and that scared away a new member. Bias is also towards only a few practices. There are many people who find amazing peace with visualizations, chakras, and dianetics[1], and other practices that include being involved with the phenomenon instead of ignoring it (and looking at the three characteristics) as is the practice usually put forth here.
I disagree with this, and also with your interpretation of how practices are "usually put forth here"; bias, if such a word is appropriate, seems to be given to what actually works to bring about a specific goal: The end of suffering.
Finding "amazing peace" isn't necessarily the same as putting an end to all fabrications, and I agree that there are plenty of people who find their lives are improved through a variety of practices. I've been quite vocal about the use of other models and perspectives, and also about what does and doesn't work based on my own experience, so I fail to see how you could suggest that non-MCTB or non-AF models are dismissed or thought less of. Yes, there is a general emphasis on MCTB as the basic conceptual framework on this site, but Daniel provides plenty of space on here for the discussion of non-Buddhist models and such cross-pollination, and the hybridized practices which have resulted from it, has become one of the most interesting developments on the DhO.
As for insight practice involving "ignoring it (and looking at the three characteristics)", I'd say you've completely misinterpreted what vipassana involved and how it is that one observes the three characteristics; it's very much involved, and requires direct experience of phenomena, not dissociation from it or ignoring it. That would be completely pointless!
Communication works both ways, we all need to open to hearing things described in different terms but a mutual understanding is what's required to move on. Lee appears to have come back to the site, and hopefully he'll read this and see that I wasn't having a personal dig at him. All I'm interested in is ending suffering, and if I can help others along the way then that's great but I'm not going to pussyfoot around and reinforce unhelpful experiences which don't lead to that end.
Peace to y'all, seriously.
[1] It's interesting that you should mention Dianetics, I've explored the OT system quite a bit and found that, if you take away all the bullshit sci-fi, it's basically an attentiveness-based practice which
could have some practical value if further study of it were possible outwith Scientology.